WILMINGTON, Del. — Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. (PCA), the global leader in deceased account management and technology solutions, is pleased to announce the acquisition of Ohio-based Estate Information Services LLC, executing its strategic vision for growth, and increasing scale and capability within the pre and post charge-off Estates collection space in the United States.

Estate Information Services (EIS) has long-standing partnerships with some the world’s largest and most sophisticated financial services organizations, including major banks and credit card companies. EIS is fully licensed across the US and is recognized as a leading provider of first and third-party Estates collection services as well as other specialized credit management solutions. 

Established in 1998, EIS has a highly experienced executive team – led by its founder and CEO, JC Gunnell and its President, John Pickens. Under their leadership, EIS has become a trusted partner to its clients, delivering consistently high performance in a heavily regulated space while gaining a reputation for prioritizing positive customer outcomes.

Adam Cohen, Chairman & CEO of Phillips & Cohen Associates, says that EIS and PCA share the same values: “JC Gunnell has dedicated her career to shaping a compassionate approach to deceased account management, and her commitment and contribution to the collections industry goes way beyond the business she has built. JC is an inspirational business leader, promoting diversity in the workplace and leading with an authenticity that has earned the trust and respect of those around her.  I look forward to JC’s continued guidance as special advisor to the Board.”

Explaining the benefits of the acquisition, Cohen added: “EIS and its team are the perfect fit for PCA. Not only do we share the same values, but we also have complementary digital technologies and services along with a shared commitment to our clients. We’ll be endeavoring to build on JC’s work, combining our contacts, experience, and expertise. I look forward to welcoming EIS to the PCA family and supporting John and the entire Ohio-team in continuing to deliver exceptional services to its clients.”

JC Gunnell, the Founder and CEO of Estate Information Services says: “When the time was right for me to step down and move my company into the future, I knew I wanted to sell to an organization that was not only an industry expert in deceased account management, but also had the same core values and exemplary customer service as EIS. I have known Phillips & Cohen for years, and highly respect the successful business, both in the US and global markets.  I feel that the acquisition will bring tremendous value and a consultative approach to the deceased account space, especially during this ever-changing time in our industry”.

The entire senior leadership team within EIS will remain with the organization under the excellent leadership of John Pickens and PCA’s priority will be to fully support John in building on the strong foundations which already exist. Upon completion, EIS will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd.

Phillips & Cohen Associates’ is headquartered in Wilmington and has offices in Florida and Colorado. It also operates in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany and the UK. This latest announcement follows PCA’s acquisition of Ardent Credit Services Ltd, a UK debt recovery and credit management services provider, in 2023.

About Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd.

Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. is a specialty receivable management company providing customized services to creditors in a variety of unique market segments. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd is domestically headquartered in Wilmington, DE, with additional offices in Colorado and Florida as well as international offices in the UK, Canada, Germany, and Australia. For more information about Phillips & Cohen Associates visit www.phillips-cohen.com. PCA provides Equal Employment Opportunity for all individuals regardless of race, color, religion, gender, age, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, veteran status, genetic information, and any other basis protected by federal, state, or local laws.

CINCINNATI, OHIO — Slovin & Associates, a creditors’ rights law firm operating in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana with headquarters in Cincinnati, is pleased to announce its recent donation to ProKids, an organization dedicated to advocating for abused, neglected, and dependent children in the Greater Cincinnati area. 

Randy Slovin, a partner at Slovin & Associates, expressed the firm’s commitment to supporting ProKids and the invaluable work they do in the community. “At Slovin & Associates, we believe in using our resources to make a positive impact on the lives of those in need, particularly the most vulnerable among us. ProKids’ dedication to advocating for children who have experienced trauma aligns closely with our values, and we are proud to support their mission.”

Helping Children Since 1981

ProKids, founded in 1981, operates under the belief that every child deserves to grow up in a safe and nurturing environment. The organization recruits, trains, and supports volunteers who serve as Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) for children involved in the child welfare system. These CASAs act as voices for the children, advocating for their best interests in court proceedings and ensuring they receive the support and services they need to thrive.

Slovin & Associates’ contribution to ProKids will help fund essential services such as training for volunteer advocates, legal representation for children in court, and resources to meet the unique needs of each child served by the organization. By investing in ProKids, Slovin & Associates aims to empower children to overcome adversity and build brighter futures.

A Community Focused Culture

At the heart of Slovin & Associates’ mission is a deep-rooted belief in the power of community support and the impact it can have on individuals’ lives. The firm recognizes that a thriving community is one where every member feels valued, protected, and empowered to reach their full potential. This philosophy highlights Slovin & Associates’ approach to its charitable donations, which prioritizes initiatives that address pressing social issues and uplift those facing adversity.

Learn More Online

For more information about Slovin & Associates’ community involvement initiatives, please visit its website’s news reel and browse the many articles highlighting the importance of community involvement. To learn more about the ProKids mission, please visit their website. 

About ProKids

ProKids is a Cincinnati-based nonprofit organization dedicated to advocating for abused, neglected, and dependent children. Since 1981, ProKids has been a leading voice for children in crisis, recruiting and training volunteers to serve as Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs). These volunteers provide invaluable support and guidance to children as they navigate the complexities of the child welfare system, ensuring their voices are heard and their best interests are represented in court. ProKids’ mission is to break the cycle of abuse and neglect, providing every child with the opportunity to thrive in a safe and loving environment.

About Slovin & Associates

Slovin & Associates, Co., LPA aims for top-tier recognition among creditors’ rights law firms in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. Specializing in collections, litigation, bankruptcy, leasing, and landlord-tenant law, their unwavering commitment prioritizes swift, cost-effective outcomes in a professional, low-maintenance environment, fostering enduring client relationships. Emphasizing transparency and compliance, the team’s active involvement in over a dozen regulatory associations, including RMAI, ACA International, and NCBA, ensures the firm’s practices align with industry standards. Slovin & Associates stands as a beacon of excellence, providing unparalleled service and expertise in the dynamic legal landscape of creditors’ rights law.

The FTC recently issued a report to Congress on its collaboration with state attorneys general. Titled “Working Together to Protect Consumers: A Study and Recommendations on FTC Collaboration with the State Attorneys General,” the report was issued pursuant to the FTC Collaboration Act of 2021. The Collaboration Act required the FTC to conduct a study “on facilitating and refining existing efforts with State Attorneys General to prevent, publicize, and penalize frauds and scams being perpetrated on individuals in the United States” and directed the FTC to report the results of the study to Congress together with recommendations for enhancing collaboration between the FTC and state AGs.

Part I of the report discusses the FTC’s existing efforts to collaborate with state AGs and highlights examples of recent enforcement actions involving FTC and state AG collaboration. Appendix A to the report contains a chart that provides information on enforcement actions the FTC filed or resolved jointly or in parallel with state AGs and consumer protection agencies with statewide enforcement authority between January 1, 2020 and March 26, 2024. The information provided in the chart includes who the FTC’s state partners were in the enforcement action and the subject matter of the enforcement action. Part I of the report also discusses (1) how the FTC shares information in its Consumer Sentinel Network, the FTC database of consumer complaints involving alleged fraud, deception, and other unlawful business practices, (2) various other ways in which the FTC and state AGs share information and expertise in the context of enforcement investigations and trainings, and (3) the role of various specialized units within the FTC in advancing and facilitating the FTC’s work with state AGs.

Part II of the report discusses recommended best practices to improve collaboration between the FTC and state AGs. The FTC observes that the importance of collaboration in enforcement actions with state AGs and other state and local law enforcers has grown since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in AMG Capital Management LLC v. FTC. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act does not authorize the FTC to seek, and a court to award, monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement. The FTC’s recommended best practices include:

Expanding state participation in the Consumer Sentinel Network and ensuring that states have the training to use it effectively.

Expanding the sharing of expertise and technical resources between the FTC and state AGs.

Part III of the report discusses legislative recommendations to enhance collaboration efforts. These consist of :

Amending the FTC Act to make clear that the FTC has authority under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act to obtain equitable monetary relief.

Amending the FTC Act to give the FTC independent authority to file lawsuits seeking civil penalties. Under existing law, before the FTC can file a case in federal court seeking civil penalties, it must provide the Attorney General of the United States with written notification, and consult with DOJ staff about whether the case should be prosecuted by the FTC or DOJ. DOJ has 45 days to consider whether to prosecute the case in the name of the United States and if DOJ declines to prosecute or fails to act within 45 days of the FTC’s referral, the FTC can file the case.

Amending the FTC Act to give the FTC clear authority to challenge practices that assist or facilitate unfair or deceptive acts or practices that violate the FTC Act. The Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Central Bank of Denver construing the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 cast doubt on the FTC’s authority to bring actions for aiding and abetting violations by others.

NEW YORK, N.Y. — Skit.ai, the leading provider of Conversational AI solutions for the accounts receivables industry, announced today its partnership with Uown Leasing, a Florida-based provider of lease-to-own, flexible payment solutions for consumer products.

Uown Leasing has chosen Skit.ai’s multichannel technology to streamline its in-house collection efforts and handle a large portion of its consumer outreach and interactions, empowering its consumers to use their preferred mode of communication, and enabling its live agents to focus on transfers and complex queries. Thanks to Skit.ai, the company will be able to scale its outreach efforts.

“We were seeking a way to boost collections cost-effectively and without the need to add additional workforce. We began by leveraging Skit.ai to run a settlement campaign during tax season this year, with the technology adapting to our seasonal needs and business model,” said Daniel Klein, CEO of Uown Leasing. “I don’t think technology will eliminate people, but having the right point of intersection between technology and human capital is how you can scale operations and make your business successful.”

After implementing Skit.ai’s solution, the company experienced a significant surge in self-serve consumer payments directed through its online payment portal, facilitated by the AI solution.

Sourabh Gupta, founder and CEO of Skit.ai, said: “Skit.ai’s multichannel Conversational AI solution engages consumers via their preferred mode of communication, exposing them to different ways to make payments and resolve queries. Uown Leasing reported that over 50% of live agent transfers performed by the AI solution convert into payments. We are pleased to have the opportunity to help businesses scale their operations with our technology.”

Over 70 businesses across the U.S., both large and small, have already adopted Skit.ai’s multichannel AI solution to streamline their recovery strategy and customer service.

Schedule a meeting to learn more about how Skit.ai can help you accelerate revenue recovery with higher efficiency and at an infinite scale.

About Uown Leasing

Uown Leasing is a lease-to-own provider headquartered in Tampa, FL. Bad credit makes it hard to buy everything life demands. Fortunately, there’s a fair, dependable no credit needed alternative to traditional financing. UownLeasing offers a simple, straightforward lease-to-own payment option to help customers acquire the quality merchandise they need from reputable dealers. No credit needed. Flexible payments. By giving customers a simple, straightforward lease-to-own payment option on essentials like bedding, appliances, and furniture—Uown works hard to make that happen. Visit https://Uownleasing.com/. 

About Skit.ai

Skit.ai is the leading Conversational AI company in the accounts receivables industry, empowering collection agencies and creditors to automate collection conversations and accelerate revenue recovery. Skit.ai’s suite of multichannel solutions—featuring voice, text, email, and chat powered by Generative AI—interacts with consumers via their preferred channel, elevating consumer experiences and consequently boosting recoveries. Skit.ai has received several awards and recognitions, including BIG AI Excellence Award 2024, Stevie Gold Winner 2023 for Most Innovative Company by The International Business Awards, and Disruptive Technology of the Year 2022 by CCW. Skit.ai is headquartered in New York City, NY. Visit https://skit.ai/. 

The insideARM team aims to bring you only the information ARM industry professionals need to know each week in order to stay up to date in the volatile world of debt collection. The most important news from last week involved emails and the FDCPA, the CFPB’s continued attempts to expand the scope of its supervision, and the NCLC’s influence on legislation. Continue reading for a summary of these articles and why we published them for you.

On Tuesday, we wanted to focus on the ongoing issue of sending emails and complying with the FDCPA by sharing a piece by John Rossman. The article tackled the current problem of email delays and subsequent class action lawsuits brought by consumer attorneys. Consumer attorneys are pushing the boundaries of the FDCPA by claiming that emails are being sent by collectors at inopportune times. The emails are being sent at allowed times but arrive too late or too early due to delays by email carriers. The piece also details how to identify these delays and, ultimately, defeat class action certification.

We highlighted an article by Troutman Pepper on Wednesday concerning the most recent move by the CFPB regarding its supervision of nonbank entities. This procedural rule looks to entice nonbanks to consent to supervision by the CFPB while also streamlining their process regarding timelines, decision-making, and notice provisions. This rule amends and enhances procedures from 2013 and is a continuation of recent CFPB actions regarding their supervisory role. The CFPB announced in 2022 that they would be more active using this authority, began doing so in 2023 and 2024, and we do not anticipate them to stop there.

Thursday, we wanted to inform you about a recent document that the NCLC has published. The State Policy Resource is a consumer-friendly debt collection document that provides consumers, consumer attorneys, and legislators with studies, articles, and model legislation to influence the discourse and rulemaking in the debt collection world. While protecting consumers is an important goal and one we believe should be part of the conversation regarding debt collection, this resource is problematic due to its extreme bias, harmful rhetoric regarding debt collectors, and consumer-centric model legislation, which fails to consider the harmful consequences it will cause to consumers and the economy. The ARM industry needs to continue to pay attention to NCLC initiatives and keep an eye on as important debt collection rules and regulations are being debated around the country.

We at insideARM thank you for reading our weekly recap. If you missed the recap from the week of April 15th, you can find it here.

To discuss these topics or get advice about your own collection or compliance issues, click here to learn more about Research Assistant, our weekly peer group meeting, and our library of resources!

When it comes to debt collection, state legislatures have been busy lately. ARM industry professionals have noticed it, the CFPB has encouraged it (see here, here, and here), and it may feel as if the industry is under pressure from all sides with some of the recent legislation and regulations. You might be wondering where some of these ideas are coming from and why it feels like there’s an uptick. One possible explanation, is the actions, rhetoric, and push for this type of legislation from the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC). Recently, NCLC provided a debt collection State Policy Resource that offers model legislation along with data, research, and consumer friendly studies. Here are the top three things you need to know about it:

1. Model Legislation Proposals

One of the NCLC’s aims is to impose stricter regulations on consumer debt collection practices. To that end, the State Policy Resource provides model legislation to affect different areas of debt collection: contracts and exemptions, wage garnishment, statutes of limitations, and medical debt. 

While each template has its own concerning provisions, the Model Statute of Limitations Reform Act might be the most troubling and we have already seen states attempting to implement some of the more drastic aspects. The model legislation would reduce the SOL to 3 years (with a shortest state provision) and reduce the validity of a judgment to 5 years with no opportunity to renew.

Recently, Minnesota’s Debt Fairness Act seemed to include the NCLC’s model language. It included the 3-year SOL, the 5-year judgment SOL, and the non-renewable judgments provision. Through the hard work of ARM industry professionals, those provisions have since been removed, but we will likely see more of this.

2. NCLC’s Negative Rhetoric

The NCLC is nothing if not exhaustive in what information it provides to consumers, law makers, and attorneys. However, the phrasing used in these documents sets the tone that debt collectors are to blame for debt problems. Some of the titles include:

• No Fresh Start 2023: Will States Let Debt Collectors Push Families Into Poverty as Economic Uncertainty Looms?
• Don’t Add Further Insult to Injury: Medical Debt & Credit Reports

The wording in both suggests that it is debt collectors pushing families into poverty (rather than low wages, inflation, etc.) and that collecting medical debt using one of the few tools available (credit reporting) is insulting. This rhetoric paints the debt collection industry as the bad guys and states are following suit with legislation that looks to make it more difficult for collectors without addressing the root causes of debt.

3. Data and Studies

The State Policy Resource has a long list of state policy indexes and reports, many of which provide state law comparisons for everything from exemptions to medical debt. To be clear, educating consumers and lawmakers about debt is never a bad thing, but much of what is shared is problematic for creditors and collectors.

For example, some of the sections seemed to be encouraging consumers to file consumer complaints and challenge the licensing of collectors. It should come as no surprise that collectors are seeing a high complaint volume, which bogs down an already complicated process.

The resource also shares some misleading studies. A recent issue brief shared in the document picks apart any research that shows a correlation between increased debt collection restrictions and any negative impacts to consumers for a variety of selective reasons. The NCLC then shares a study and claims that “wage seizure protections actually raised the amount of credit available and increased net benefits to consumers and credit providers” when the study states the direct opposite.

You can find the entire document here.

insideARM Perspective

The State Policy Resource poses significant challenges as it raises concerns around the model legislation influencing state lawmakers, the rhetoric employed within the resource demonizing debt collectors, and the document being marred by biases and inaccuracies all of which threaten to further complicate the landscape for creditors and collectors. In navigating this environment, ARM professionals must remain vigilant in the states they practice in and actively engage with policymakers to ensure balanced and fair regulations that uphold both consumer rights and industry viability. Otherwise, this document will be indicative of the direction debt collection legislation is heading.

Additionally, those in the ARM industry should consider ways to dispel the myth that debt collectors are harmful. Debt collectors are part of the financial ecosystem for a reason. For a variety of reasons, those in the ARM industry often stay silent when they see mistruths. However, the less we participate in the conversation, the more we allow inaccuracies, like those found in NCLC’s State Policy Resource, to flourish. 

When it comes to debt collection, state legislatures have been busy lately. ARM industry professionals have noticed it, the CFPB has encouraged it (see here, here, and here), and it may feel as if the industry is under pressure from all sides with some of the recent legislation and regulations. You might be wondering where some of these ideas are coming from and why it feels like there’s an uptick. One possible explanation, is the actions, rhetoric, and push for this type of legislation from the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC). Recently, NCLC provided a debt collection State Policy Resource that offers model legislation along with data, research, and consumer friendly studies. Here are the top three things you need to know about it:

1. Model Legislation Proposals

One of the NCLC’s aims is to impose stricter regulations on consumer debt collection practices. To that end, the State Policy Resource provides model legislation to affect different areas of debt collection: contracts and exemptions, wage garnishment, statutes of limitations, and medical debt. 

While each template has its own concerning provisions, the Model Statute of Limitations Reform Act might be the most troubling and we have already seen states attempting to implement some of the more drastic aspects. The model legislation would reduce the SOL to 3 years (with a shortest state provision) and reduce the validity of a judgment to 5 years with no opportunity to renew.

Recently, Minnesota’s Debt Fairness Act seemed to include the NCLC’s model language. It included the 3-year SOL, the 5-year judgment SOL, and the non-renewable judgments provision. Through the hard work of ARM industry professionals, those provisions have since been removed, but we will likely see more of this.

2. NCLC’s Negative Rhetoric

The NCLC is nothing if not exhaustive in what information it provides to consumers, law makers, and attorneys. However, the phrasing used in these documents sets the tone that debt collectors are to blame for debt problems. Some of the titles include:

• No Fresh Start 2023: Will States Let Debt Collectors Push Families Into Poverty as Economic Uncertainty Looms?
• Don’t Add Further Insult to Injury: Medical Debt & Credit Reports

The wording in both suggests that it is debt collectors pushing families into poverty (rather than low wages, inflation, etc.) and that collecting medical debt using one of the few tools available (credit reporting) is insulting. This rhetoric paints the debt collection industry as the bad guys and states are following suit with legislation that looks to make it more difficult for collectors without addressing the root causes of debt.

3. Data and Studies

The State Policy Resource has a long list of state policy indexes and reports, many of which provide state law comparisons for everything from exemptions to medical debt. To be clear, educating consumers and lawmakers about debt is never a bad thing, but much of what is shared is problematic for creditors and collectors.

For example, some of the sections seemed to be encouraging consumers to file consumer complaints and challenge the licensing of collectors. It should come as no surprise that collectors are seeing a high complaint volume, which bogs down an already complicated process.

The resource also shares some misleading studies. A recent issue brief shared in the document picks apart any research that shows a correlation between increased debt collection restrictions and any negative impacts to consumers for a variety of selective reasons. The NCLC then shares a study and claims that “wage seizure protections actually raised the amount of credit available and increased net benefits to consumers and credit providers” when the study states the direct opposite.

You can find the entire document here.

insideARM Perspective

The State Policy Resource poses significant challenges as it raises concerns around the model legislation influencing state lawmakers, the rhetoric employed within the resource demonizing debt collectors, and the document being marred by biases and inaccuracies all of which threaten to further complicate the landscape for creditors and collectors. In navigating this environment, ARM professionals must remain vigilant in the states they practice in and actively engage with policymakers to ensure balanced and fair regulations that uphold both consumer rights and industry viability. Otherwise, this document will be indicative of the direction debt collection legislation is heading.

Additionally, those in the ARM industry should consider ways to dispel the myth that debt collectors are harmful. Debt collectors are part of the financial ecosystem for a reason. For a variety of reasons, those in the ARM industry often stay silent when they see mistruths. However, the less we participate in the conversation, the more we allow inaccuracies, like those found in NCLC’s State Policy Resource, to flourish. 

On April 16, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a procedural rule streamlining the designation proceedings for nonbank supervision based on a particular entity posing “risks to consumers.” As discussed in “Troutman’s Take” below, the changes are designed to encourage nonbanks to volunteer to be supervised, while making it easier for the CFPB to impose supervisory oversight when companies do not consent.

In 2013, the CFPB issued procedures to govern nonbank supervisory designation proceedings, but did not actually utilize those procedures, at least not that were highlighted publicly. In 2022, the CFPB announced that it would begin to make active use of this “dormant authority,” discussed here. The CFPB initiated its first public round of supervisory designation proceedings, discussed here, in 2023 and in 2024 issued its first supervisory designation order in a contested matter, discussed here.

The CFPB states that it is issuing the rule pursuant to its authority under the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to monitor markets for consumer financial products and services that pose risks to consumers and to conduct a risk-based nonbank supervision program for the purpose of assessing compliance with federal consumer financial laws.

Key Changes in the Rule

The new rule includes several key changes:

• Voluntary Consent to Supervisory Authority: The rule clarifies that a consent agreement does not constitute an admission and allows for case-by-case determination of the duration of supervision. Under the 2013 rule, all consent agreements were for two years. While the CFPB anticipates that will continue to be the typical duration, the new rule provides flexibility if a longer or shorter period is warranted.

• Notice of Reasonable Cause: The 2013 rule included methods of service patterned on how a notice of charges is served under the Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings. To provide additional flexibility, the new rule also permits other methods that are “reasonably calculated to give notice.” The new rule also codifies that the initiating official may withdraw a Notice, whereas the 2013 rule did not expressly address this subject.

• Reply by Initiating Official: The new rule provides the initiating official with the option of filing a written reply to the response. Under the 2013 rule, there was no reply.

• Supplemental Oral Response: The rule gives the Director more flexibility regarding whether a supplemental oral response is in person at the Bureau’s headquarters, by telephone, or by video conference.

• Determination by the Director: The new rule merges the adjudicative roles of the Associate Director and Director in these proceedings, streamlining the Bureau’s internal decision-making process.

• Methods of Filing and Serving Documents: The rule clarifies the method of filing and serving documents, which will generally be by e-mail. The service of the Notice at the start of a proceeding, when a respondent’s e-mail address may not be known, is governed by a specific rule.

• Time Limits: The rule simplifies the former method for calculating time limits, which varied by delivery channel to allow additional time for mail or delivery services to arrive. This change aims to reduce confusion as e-mail is generally instantaneous.

• Word Limits: The rule introduces a word limit for the Notice, response, and certain other key filings, based on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure.

• Confidentiality of Proceedings: The rule maintains the 2022 rule’s approach to the public release of final decisions and orders but clarifies that consent agreements entered into by the initiating official and respondent are not subject to the public release process (which, we understand, has been the Bureau’s practice since the 2022 announcement).

• Multiple Respondents: The rule clarifies that multiple respondents might be named in a Notice, as well as clarifying the process for adding an additional respondent or respondents to a pending proceeding.

• Issue Exhaustion: The new rule includes an express issue exhaustion provision that parallels the Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings. This provision requires parties to give the agency an opportunity to address an issue before seeking judicial review of that question.

The rule is effective upon publication in the Federal Register. It applies to proceedings initiated on or after the effective date. It also applies to proceedings that are pending on the effective date, except to the extent the Director determines that is not just or practicable.

Troutman’s Take

Although the changes are procedural, they build upon the Bureau’s ongoing efforts to expand its supervision of nonbanks, especially fintechs. This procedural rule signals that the CFPB will increasingly encourage, and perhaps pressure, nonbanks to consent to be supervised, while simultaneously simplifying the process for the CFPB to impose its risk-based supervisory authority if companies do not consent. The CFPB’s risk-based designation process for nonbank is no longer “dormant.”

WEST SENECA, N.Y. — Landmark Strategy Group, a nationally licensed and bonded receivables management firm located in West Seneca, NY, has spent the last decade involved with dozens of Western New York (WNY) community groups, tackling issues from food insecurity to homelessness. To support its community, Landmark has spent the early part of 2024 volunteering at the FeedMore WNY Warehouse and supporting their Backpack Pack-Out Program, which assists children facing food insecurity over the weekends.

“Collaborating with FeedMore WNY epitomizes our commitment to community service,” said Mark Lesinski, Managing Partner of Landmark Strategy Group. “It’s not just about addressing immediate needs but fostering a culture of compassion and support that reverberates through our neighborhoods. We’re not just filling stomachs, we are helping those in need find a place of community, rest, and support.”

Supporting Those in Need

A cornerstone of their volunteer efforts at FeedMore WNY is their involvement in sorting and preparing emergency food boxes. These boxes, weighing approximately 20 lbs each, serve as crucial lifelines for many during times of crisis. With precision and care, the team at Landmark works diligently to ensure that these boxes are packed efficiently, containing essential items that can provide sustenance and relief to those in need.

Their commitment, however, doesn’t end there. Landmark understands the importance of addressing food insecurity at its core, particularly among vulnerable populations such as school children. They wholeheartedly support the backpack pack-out program, an initiative aimed at assisting WNY school children facing food insecurity over the weekends.

Operating discreetly, this program ensures that students receive food-filled backpacks every Friday, guaranteeing access to nutritious meals even outside school hours. Through close collaboration with local schools, Landmark ensures the seamless delivery of these essential supplies, significantly impacting the lives of the students they serve.

Taking Pride in Community Work

Their partnership with FeedMore WNY is about nourishing hope, dignity, and opportunity. It’s about showing up, standing together, and making a meaningful impact in the lives of those who need it most. That’s why, since its inception as a receivables firm in WNY, Landmark has worked closely with the community to ensure everyone is safe and secure, not just their employees. Throughout 2023, Landmark worked closely with FeedMore WNY to support holiday meal prep, community outreach efforts, and more. But the work in the community doesn’t stop there. Led by Mark Lesinski, Landmark is often found cycling, volunteering, or encouraging community work.

“We believe that every human deserves to live with dignity and hope and no act of kindness is ever too small. That’s why I try to lead by example and help our neighbors in need through volunteering with and donating to organizations that create an immediate positive impact,” Mr. Lesinski said. “Food and shelter are two of the most basic necessities for human survival and our team actively supports charitable organizations in our community that are effectively serving these critical needs for our neighbors.”

About Landmark Strategy Group

Landmark Strategy Group, LLC is a nationally licensed and bonded receivables management firm located in West Seneca, NY that specializes in passively purchasing non-performing receivables portfolios from credit unions and other sources. Mark Lesinski and the rest of Landmark’s executive team have a combined total of 60+ years of experience in the ARM industry and have developed efficient and compliant processes that deliver a quick valuation, streamlined purchase, and exceptional customer service after the sale.

Consumer attorneys are filing new class action lawsuits asserting that debt collector emails are being sent before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. in violation of the FDCPA. While debt collectors must adhere to the time restrictions for sending debt collection emails, it will be impossible for the consumer attorneys to certify any FDCPA class action asserting that a debt collector sent emails at an inconvenient time because email providers routinely delay the delivery of emails. As discussed below, this delay between when a debt collector sends an email and when the consumer receives the email necessitates an “individualized inquiry” to establish standing for each potential class member which will defeat any class action.  

Time-Restrictions on Sending Debt Collection Emails

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau articulated in Regulation F that debt collection email communications violate 1692c as inconvenient if they are sent before 8 a.m. and after 9 p.m. local time for the consumer. Regulation F further provides that “an electronic communication occurs when the debt collector sends it, not, for example, when the consumer receives or views it.”   

Consumer attorneys are now asserting putative FDCPA class action lawsuits against debt collectors premised on the time that an email was received by the consumer. However, the time that a consumer receives an email is often different from the time that the email was sent by the debt collector, sometime by many hours.  

How to Identify Email Delivery Delays to Defeat a Class Action

An email that a consumer receives utilizing the Yahoo email platform does not, on its face, always disclose the actual time that the email is sent despite including a “time sent” field in the email. Yahoo publishes the following information on its website to assist consumers with accessing the “full header” on an email to determine how long an email was delayed:

In the example published on the Yahoo website above, the email is delayed “for about 1 hour and 15 minutes.” However, the recipient of the email would be unaware of this delay unless the recipient took the multiple steps outlined on the Yahoo website to access the “full header” for the email. Gmail likewise uses “predelivery scanning” to delay certain email messages before delivery, in some cases for hours.  

Email Delays Necessitate Individualized Standing Inquiries, thus Defeating Class Certification

While Regulation F provides that “an electronic communication occurs when the debt collector sends it,” the United States Supreme Court held in Ramirez v. TransUnion that each consumer seeking to participate in a class action must suffer some “concrete injury.” This standing requirement of a “concrete injury” is problematic for any FDCPA class action alleging that debt collection emails were sent at an inconvenient time because the receipt of emails are frequently delayed. How could a potential class member in an FDCPA lawsuit establish any “concrete injury” if a debt collection email that was sent at an inconvenient time is received by the consumer’s computer at a convenient time due to delivery delays by the email carrier?  

Thus, to determine whether a consumer qualifies as a member of any potential class action asserting that debt collection emails were sent at an inconvenient time, an individualized inquiry must be conducted to determine if the email was received at an inconvenient time by each member of the potential class due to email delays. For potential class members with a Yahoo email address, the multi-step process described on the Yahoo website and cited above must be used to identify the sending time in the full header.  

Notably, the requirement for an individualized inquiry regarding the actual receipt time of each email for each potential class member defeats the “predominance” or “superiority” element of a class action. The United States Supreme Court has held in Comcast v. Behrend that a class action is improperly certified if individual questions overwhelm questions common to the class. 

Conclusion

Any company facing class allegations that it sent debt collection emails at an inconvenient time – whether those allegations arise under the FDCPA, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act or some other law – should consider whether delays in email delivery may defeat these claims.